New Level on the Fight Against Global Warming: We Need to Freeze the Arctic
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 вер 2022
- How far can you go to stop global warming? Can you freeze the ocean? Well, not you, of course, but some scientists and engineers claim they can accomplish that aim! They already work on different projects to preserve the remaining ice and create some more! So, there is no need to be a Disney princess to freeze oceans. All we need is well-calculated engineering!
Join our UA-cam channel by clicking here: bit.ly/3asNo2n
Find us on Instagram: bit.ly/3PM21xW
Find us on Facebook: bit.ly/3t2Huvb
Find us on Twitter: bit.ly/3wQfXzA
Find us on TikTok: bit.ly/3wNsBOu - Наука та технологія
Not only is the submarine not scalable, but also the “29yo engineer” doesn't seem to know what a 9yo engineer knows: that 90% of an iceberg is below sea level. And let's not mention the energy requirement and the heat produced by the submarine, which would completely defeat its purpose.
1. Ice loss is a result of global warming, not a cause. So it won't solve the larger problem.
2. Freezing water requires more energy than the energy removed resulting in adding more heat to the earth. Just like leaving your freezer door open warms a room, and doesn't cool it. This 'solution' is opposite of what you want to do.
This certainly is "interesting" engineering.
So tell people to stop flying in private jets
Agreed. Let's start with the WEF.
We can have time with freezing that
It's times like this I wish Mr. Freeze was real.
This kind of bullshit really makes me feel better about myself… multiple people actually thought this was plausible to get it this far…
Build a massive sun-shield in the outer space. That could reflect the sunlight reaching the polar caps
Well, that sounds like something that couldn't go wrong or make our productive earth colder and less productive. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
@@rudigereichler4112 our productive earth yeah its so productive that we're having to genetically alter our staple crops to try and withstand heat and drought.
@@rudigereichler4112 😂
@rudigereichler4112 it's probably the most intuitive thought in this comments section though, wouldn't you agree?
Easier said than done.
Also I don't like citing movies but have you ever watched the Matrix?
This reminds me of a movie called Idiocracy, where the protagonist is sent to the future and there are only stupid people, because smart people didn't want to have kids xD
Refreezing Arctic Ice. Using sectional floatation, a 20' diameter pipes would hang vertically from the ocean surface to 20' from the ocean floor, being close to the ice pack. A water pump at the top would need to just pump out the top 4' feet of water before the capillary effect would begin bringing up the colder water from the bottom. This colder water hitting the ice would reduce the amount of melt throughout the summer and allow the winter to build up a greater amount of ice every winter. One pipe would do nothing, 10,000 would have the desired effect of building up the ice and cooling the entire region, possibly helping to reduce the melting of the Greenland ice pack.
Also, having freezing stations where the water streams are refrozen as they travel over them might be possible. Attack the problem at the origin.
It's like asking can we make ice in the fridge freezer. The arctic is already frozen! That's why when the arctic air visited Buffalo New York last January people froze to death
An even more effective and already scalable solution ... Encourage people to open their fridges and freezers all day long to stop or at least slow down global warming! Even better ... Crank up your A/C as well while you are at it! This way you don't have to build these silly little ships to do the same thing.
Just because it is shown in a cute looking video doesn't mean it is scientifically sound!
The only way to refreeze the arctic is to reduce the global CO2 levels from 420ppm back down to 280ppm
Then while the CO2 levels are dropping, an artificial albedo has to be setup, like painting the highways, parking lots etc to bounce sunlight back into space before it can be converted into heat
They need to stop using black asphalt for roads and make all future roads from concrete or another white/light colored material. Black paint on vehicles and other exterior surfaces should also be outlawed.
@@craig32935 People should dye the ocean bleach white… LOLOL, black paint on cars? That would have zero impact. Also there are many different reasons why certain roads require blacktop vs concrete. It’s more flexible is one reason, Repairing and maintaining is also easier. Climate matters as in if you live on the coast or in the Midwest vs the south. Snow and ice etc.
@@charleskavoukjian3441 cleary, you don't understand thermal radiation. Light colors reflect light back into space. Dark colors absorb and radiate it. That is why they are concerned about ice sheet loss. Less ice means more thermal radiation get absorbed by the oceans, warming them up.
There are 1.44 billion cars on the rode in the world. That's just cars, not trucks, buses, RVs, Big Rigs, etc. Just cars. Black is the second most popular car color in the world at 19%. Thats 266 million black cars.
I won't bother doing the math for you on radiated heat of black vs white cars since you already think color doesn't matter so clearly you need the exercise. I'm sure you at least no how to use Google so, have it.
@@craig32935 LOL, I drive a black on black on black Audi S4 v8 get about 14-16 city super eco friendly don’t worry. You do realize if the USA went carbon neutral or net zero today, it would have ZERO to no impact on the climate? So painting a few million cars in a different colored“oil” based paint would save the world?😂 Did you also realize I was being sarcastic? How about carbon capture, or continuing to find cleaner more efficient ways to dig and produce oil? Maybe make things in America and then force china to cut back, or India. I mean over 60% of china is powered by coal. I also wish Ev charging stations weren’t powered from coal and other fossil fuels like diesel. Maybe in ten years solar, wind, etc will be able to🤷♂️. Defeats the point of going EV in my eyes. I also don’t get why it takes 2-4 hundred thousand miles to completely make the car carbon neutral. What will humans do in a thousand years with all the battlers infecting the grounds with toxic poisons? When all the soil becomes tainted. Or what will we do about the fine earth metals that destroy the planet to get? Makes more sense to make fossil cheaper and more eco friendly than to switch to EV’s. Especially with china and russia breathing down our back. We can’t afford to fall behind because our windmills weren’t spinning and the sun wasn’t out. I mean we alone have 3-500 years of oil under our feet in the US. We dropped global emissions more than any other country in the Paris accord pre xiden, We were energy independent, now we get dirty oil from Venezuela that destroys the forests and eco systems around. I would also like to note that the top minds on energy approach things like this, They think in percents, the problem you are trying to solve is a 10% problem. Meaning small an with minimal impact, America for example is a 10% nation. Now think about a country like Honduras, 3rd world, and has what they call 90% problems. If the world focuses on fixing the problems from the 10% nothing will change for 90% of the world. If we 10% countries find new ways to produce and refine fossil fuels or whatever, we then introduce it to the 90% countries and help to try and bring it to scale. Fixing the 90% would have a much larger impact that making Europe and America net zero, as in long term for the planet. Also don’t forget we are still coming out of an ice age. Wonder in a few thousand years if humans will be jealous of the time we live in because they are all freezing again. They’ll have the best thermal radiation tech by then!😂Energy is far more important than a paint job, sorry…
We should be terrified of a trace gas of 0.04% of all gases? I read Professor Ian Plimer's book "Green Murder" and a lot of other scientific literature and no longer live in fear of the boogieman. Everything is a rich man's trick.
The idiocy of this idea is staggering. THE EARTH GOES THROUGH CYCLES LIKE ALL OF OBSERVABLE MATTER. Earth's cycles are about 25,000 years, longer than we can keep track of. The most common change is a big meteor which causes a nuclear winter for a few thousand years depending on all variables of the strike. Thinking humans can change this is impressively stupid.
Bet , give me a couple nuclear reactors, a million Zamboni’s and a billions 🧊machines
And some hoses don’t forget the hoses
This would end horribly. Earth cycles and we want to interrupt that???
Haven't we already? With accelerated climate change due to human activities.
Do _you_ want to end horribly?
Technofix....hopium. Please don't make it worse.
Just drop a giant ice cube now and then into the ocean.
Ha, sad no one got the Futurama reference... Bite my shiny metal ass!
I don't understand why people living in New York or San Francisco who take global warming so seriously don't move to North Dakota or Alberta before the ice melts and the sea level rises and destroys their cities. What are they waiting for? Plus, all solutions proposed here will use oil, which "contributes to global warming". To sum up: we are not smart enough nor rich enough to stop climate changing (as it's always done), nor able to substitute oil in the next few decades without absolutely fucking up our system. If we think global warming is so important, maybe we should accept it and start making plans to adapt to the new circumstances, rather than attempting to change those circumstances. Migrate. Or we can just pretend that Earth should always look exactly the same as it looked the day we were born.
You have to understand that some people are really bad at really helping against climate change or its just we do care but we're bad at actually doing something
we can dooo thttt
How could money even be a reason not to invest in our planet. SAVE THE EARTH!
It’s not the money. The idea won’t work.
easy, deploy orbital solar shades.
What is it?
@@fatemad4012 its a thin piece of reflective foil ranging in size from the size of a tennis court to a kilometer. It basically just blocks a tiny bit of the sun. Get enough of em and it will cool the earth.
@@jebes909090 how expensive is that? And is it have any side effects or not? How can we use that ?
@@fatemad4012 i imagine it would be fairly expensive right now. Its all theoratical after all. The way you use it is to put a bunch of them at a lagrange point i believe(its been a really long time since i looked it up.) And then they just kinda sit there, blocking a bit of the sun. You dont have to block that much to have an effect. Think of a cloud passing in front of the sun.
@@jebes909090 it's much safer than other methods I guess we don't have much time at least with this we could save some time even if it is expensive
This won't work. Cooling the ocean is taking away heat, and the heat needs to go somewhere. In this case, back into the ocean, which means that you haven't cooled the ocean at all.
This heat can (and should) be converted into electricity.
Have you never heard of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion before?
@@ericliu5491can you eloerate more?
Russia burning gas prompt 10million per day 🥺🔥
that boat idea could actually work
no, and you are dumb for thinking that
no it f*cking couldn't
The ice will come abck.
Imagine countries oppose refreezing because then mineral resources under the Arctic ice will become less available.
Or because refreezing using those ships producing hexagonal ice would be the dumbest idea ever. It will just create more heat, which will end up melting more ice.
okay, I don't know about this. Might be a good point ;)@@Shadow66090
Please Review and Comment
Cooling the Polar Regions
Wilson B. Goddard, Ph.D, Principal Research Engineer and Christine B. Goddard, M.A. Principal Environmental Planner Manager, Goddard and Goddard Engineering - Environmental Studies
Abstract:
A proposed geoengineering of Cirrus/contrail clouds by commercial aviation during polar flights using a Welsbach material added to their jet fuel to cool the Arctic is outlined. Aluminum oxide is discussed as an inexpensive spectral shifting Welsbach material. The geophysical implication, if nothing is done, is allowing continued Arctic global warming which is moving the northern hemisphere toward unknown adverse weather phenomena adversely affecting societies and agriculture. The proposed polar cooling program can move us back toward the cold geophysical Arctic which we understand and to which we have adapted
He’s correct price will be worse they must invest 500 billion dollars right away. There’s no time left. We have six years left if we don’t do anything about it sea levels will keep rising
Many viruses will be release also
engineers ? of fantasy
what was goofy to me about this whole video is when they said would it be worth it.....would it be worth letting the world flood because we felt it wasnt worth the price??? goofy shit lmfao
The re-freezing idea is so dumb on so many levels. It is like opening your fridge and pretending you are cooling down the planet. While actually doing the opposite.
We must immediately built this project if we don’t right away they’ll be a waterworld
Especially that ice making "solution" is completely dumb and counter-productive actually.
It's unlikely it'll be that serious.
And this solution is not a solution.
@@LineOfThythousands of ancient viruses will come
Nonsense. They've been claiming for years the Arctic would be ice free by now, but there is more ice in the Arctic now than when in 2007 Al Gore said it would be ice free in 7 years.
I guess u stay in mars, because if u from earth you can definitely feel global warming. Back in the day government didn’t care or believe global warming that’s why we here now trying go green. Listen to scientific not government officials
Stûpid
Al Gore was your choice of source?!
Anti climate change propaganda is another HUGE part of this problem. Whether you believe it or not, isn’t better to be safe than sorry, or dead for that matter?
Or we could grow tf up and choose to change the economic system that's driving clımate change...
Brazilian offshore is the same, since 1500.
No. This is not a solution! No. This is impossible and stupid
Don't be silly. As regards the melting of Arctic Ice, the records nearly always seem to start in 1979. Strange that, considering it was a year of record extent for Arctic Ice. Even so, data from NOAA (2022) show winter (March) ice coverage has hardly changed since '79, and that the summer (September) coverage trend had stopped declining since 2007. How inconvenient! Didn't someone predict in 2007 Arctic ice free by 2010, or 2015, or 2013, or in 5 years? Or was it in 2008 the Arctic ice sheet would melt away. Also predicted in 2008 North Pole ice free in ... 2008 ... or in 10 years. 2009 prediction: Arctic ice free in 2014. 2012 prediction: snow will be gone by 2020. And 2013 star prediction: Methane catastrophe in 2 years because of ice free Arctic. 2018 prediction: zero chance of permanent ice in Arctic by 2022. It's still there, and it's stopped shrinking.
If you consider global sea ice cover, it was basically flat from 1981 to 2008, rose until 2010, stayed level until 2015, dropped until 2018, and then rebounded almost all the way back to the 1990-2000 average. Nobody predicted theses changes, nor can they explain them. The changes have no relationship to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The climate crisis/emergency/apocalypse is make-believe.
How to explain these changes:
1) Google
Problem solved.
2) What tf is this argument half of this is just "Oh yeah I remember someone said something that didn't match up perfectly... and... uh.... yeah.... that disproves everything because this one guy... (i forgot his name) represents everyone in the field..."
Sounds like another wacko bill Gates idea!!
No, we need to melt the Artic and explore the land.
The earth is going through a cycle.
You can't stop it no matter how much money you have.
🤓
The answer is no. Do you guys seriously not understand how ice works? Yes salt water has a much lower freezing point, but we have tried desalination before for drinking water and managed to fail on that hardcore. Yet now you think we can do it to freeze the water on a boat when we couldn't pull it off on land with entire power grids to power it?
And what if you succeeded? Wow, it just melts again... bravo. You'd have to be freezing it faster than it's melting, so now you have to both solve all the problems with desalination that kept us from using it for much more practical uses under much less practical conditions, and do it on a large enough scale as to freeze the water faster than it thaws...
Sorry, but no, this is just another example of an idea so dumb only an overeducated person could have thought of it.
It will give us some time before we could possibly have biggest change like invent the technology for cooling down
@fatemad4012 You do realize that in the 70's they were claiming we were on the verge of entering a new ice age, right? They even had ads depicting the Sahara desert as a sheet of ice and claiming that was what the future held for us.
That's only about 50 years ago. Then in the 80s and 90s they completely reversed course and started saying the planet was warming instead.
Could you imagine though, what if they had tried some radical plan to alter the planet's climate in the 70's, trying to warm it up and prevent that imaginary ice age?
What if we do something radical now to cool it down only to learn in 5 years that they got it wrong again, and that doing so actually did doom us?
@fatemad4012 I would like you to look into what they were claiming about the future of the climate back in the 60's and 70's. It was wildly different from what they say to day. The exact polar opposite in fact. Could you imagine if they made the rash decision to try and alter the climate then?
@@ChrisR2020 yes I Know it's risky but obviously around the globe climate is changing big we can't deny this even if it was completely nuturaul in nuture we had biggest extinction of species how could you not sure we're not the next extinction? so we should do something to prevent that
@@ChrisR2020 @ChrisR2020 I Know it's risky but obviously around the globe climate is changing big we can't deny this even if it was completely nutural in nuture we had biggest extinction of species how could you not sure we're not the next extinction? so we should do something to prevent that
Yes it is important to freeze the artic
He talks so slow.
Yes we can freeze it permanently
Bunch of scamers !
I always thought this idea to stop climate cange but you gave goosbump man 500 billion dollar who will invest? rich countries think they will not suffer because they have money and equipment.
Might as well spend that money on sustainable energy and stopping the problem, not on making more ice. It's basically just trying to prolong the inevitable, since we would still be releasing more CO2
*TL;DR:* I only like this idea for the fact that hexagon-shaped icebergs had already looked cool in media, but the real thing would _totally_ rock. Outside of that, *this whole "global warming" and "climate change" thing is absurd and ridiculous.* Compared to the natural environment, we barely have _any_ effect on the atmosphere; it's natural processes that warm and cool the planet around a balanced center. *Just **_actually_** do your research. **_PLEASE._*
*Brief Description*
This idea of "fighting climate change" has no connection with the real world, and thus is bad information overall. For one, "destroying" the ozone layer, if it were even possible, would _cool_ the earth, not warm it; ozone is a greenhouse gas, and it's designed to keep in sunlight, not block it, hence it being a "greenhouse gas." Also, just one look at a chart might surprise you. On a tiny scale, there is indeed a bit of a rise in temperature in the last couple of decades. But that's in terms of getting as small as tenths decimals. On a much larger scale, it's practically not changed at all. *See what scantly little effect we have on the earth compared to the natural environment?!*
This doesn't just make human activity an "unlikely factor" for "climate change;" it's _completely_ ruled out this way. Therefore, we can only point to natural circumstances for "global warming." And no, that doesn't even mean that the earth is losing control of its temperature regulation. *God designed the earth to regulate itself without issue--and it's even able to keep itself completely in orbit, on top of that.* Basically, what's happening here is that the earth doesn't stay at a constant temperature; rather, it moves up and down to keep it around the center. At one moment, it might be extremely warm like you're _so_ worried about, and the next, even Florida will be struggling to stay above 80°F in most cases. *In other words, next thing you know, you'd be worried sick about "global freezing" and then some. The media is lying to you; do your research.*
*BONUS*
In fact, even if after all that, you're still not convinced that I'm speaking the literal truth here(?), I'll gladly point to Dr. Jay L. Wile and his "Exploring Creation With" books, more specifically, "Physical Science." He speaks at length as to why global warming is something that would never humanly happen, and that CFCs should've stuck around because they were indeed _the_ wonder chemical--and we only stopped them over an "ozone hole" that was only deeper for a _literal_ 4 months out of the year before returning to full strength in November. I won't go into any detail here to prevent from going way off topic here; I'm just giving yet more important information that you could look up either through these or yourself to figure out the truth. *Don't throw the media a bone in this case, **_ever:_** unless you know the whole story and have actually done your research, it's **_extremely_** easy to be misinformed.*
You get a fever if the temperature of your body rises from 37°C to just 38°C. Let this metaphor sink in. Life is delicate, and so is our climate. Little changes can have massive effects, and it is not within our brain capacity to predict these changes accurately. So let's not take the risk of ignoring the numbers and to catch that fever.
Dude you got everything wrong.
1) Climate change is an issue that is being caused by us
- The ozone layer is not really a problem anymore (since we solved it). Also, the ozone layer was not destroyed by greenhouse gases, it was destroyed by active bromine and chlorine. Something you would've been able to find with a simple google search. Ever since we started using less of those, the ozone layer "magically" healed over.
- The climate of the planet rises and cools in cycles that we call glacial minimums/maximums. We are heading towards a glacial maximum, or, we were supposed to. Now climate change has basically made it impossible for the planet to enter that cycle. So yes, we do in fact have a VERY LARGE EFFECT ON EARTH considering we effectively ENDED THE NEXT ICE AGE.
- Any argument concerning the existence of god first requires the absolute proof that god is an active effector of the world. Keep religion out of science. Stable orbits are completely unrelated to any higher being, a whopping 100% of all major planetary bodies in our solar system have stable orbits.
- Also, counterpoint: The magnetic field of earth happens to flip every few hundred thousand years or so, often leading to catastrophic death and extinction through most species. While a magnetic flip is unlikely to kill all humans, it would certainly end civilization as we know it. God may have designed earth to self regulate, but he definitely didn't design it to accommodate human society.
- Of course, the media is lying to you but this one guy who I promise you is more credible than his entire field of study has written a book that I'm certain is 100% correct (despite doing no research or having any common sense in general). Ignoring all the potential incentives to lie and misinform to generate personal popularity and to cater to a specific demographic of people who have shown susceptibility to conspiracy theories and agendas that match their own predetermined narrative, there's no way an honest, god-fearing man could lie to you, right?
2) This machine f*cking sucks.
As technology evolves, human thinking seems to reduce significantly. How on earth can scientists be so stupid in even floating such theories around. Utter waste of time and energy.! There are 3 kinds of theories. Proven, widely accepted and the last one is 'stupid' theory. I think many such interesting engineering theories belong to the 3rd kind.
Yeah and with your mentality new innovation would never come alive. Planes were once stupid ideas along with millions of other ideas. The ones who are narrow minded and fail to see the future have always been present and noted in history. This is definitely a similar moment b/c not now but freezing water in larger scale will definitely become possible in the future(and thicker layer will allow for underwater icebergs which would at the end solve the problem if not already solved by then)
It will freeze itself, just be patient..